You don't have to console anyone, personally. The government doesn't just belong to you. So, it may do things with altruistic intentions that you believe is unnecessary.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I'm not saying that there was no religion in the South. I'm saying that the Northerners were Anabaptists, the predecessors to the Puritans, Mennonites, Amish, and Baptists. That's why the South was originally so much better off financially. Most of them didn't really care about religion.
Last edited:
You're saying that the South was "better off financially" - early on- because of the lack of organized religion in the South and the abundance of it in the North? You don't think it had something to do with the greater amount of farmland in the South to produce the trade goods, and the climate being more conducive in the South, that were vital to the Triangular Trade? The people in the South who were religious used their interpretation to justify the institution of slavery, they would continue to do that until the Civil War.
And, there was wealth in the North, too. To make a general statement like "most people in the South, during colonial times, didn't care about religion" doesn't sound entirely accurate. I don't know that religion in the 17th and 18th centuries was as prominent, in the entire country, as it would come to be in the 19th. Obviously the sects like the Dunkards, Amish, etc., are the exceptions. But, those groups made up very small parts of the population, just like now.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing the effect of religion - at that time- into the discussion. You mean that it has switched-over, now? I would agree that many of the ardent abolitionists were also religious. And, the South is now far more religious than any other part of the country.
Yeah, I know it has switched, which is why I made the comment, "It's pretty interesting when you look at the common day political landscape." I don't know why you seem to be getting so upset over this. A big reason for the initial financial split in the two regions is because one group came over for religious reasons and one group came over for economical reasons. Does it surprise you that the people focusing on making money did better financially? Maybe you want to try to pin slavery and racism on religion, but that just isn't the case. If you want to know who really fubared race relations over the last 150 years, all you have to do is look at reconstruction.
I'm not upset.
I just wasn't following you. I didn't "blame racism on religion." I said that a lot of the abolitionists were religious. I also said that people use religion to justify their behavior, whether history approves of it or not. I still don't think the the people from the South came here for "economic reasons" and the Northerners came for "religious reasons." I don't think it was that binary. Read the history of New York (New Amsterdam)... that place was only about $$$ from Day 1. And, yes, they had slaves, too.
I get you, and I'm not talking about isolated places. New Amsterdam wasn't originally an English territory either.
As for slavery, it was actually a solution to the problem the colonies were having with the different Native American tribes. They had used indentured servants at first, but the problem with that was part of the contract was to give these indentured servants a plot of land after they had worked off what they owed. This granting of land was starting to push into Native American territory and causing issues with the different tribes.
Last edited:
All of the small government conservatives that went to cut spending seem to have gone silent about Trump using government funds to hold a glorified campaign rally. He took money from the National Park service which is already underdunded. Politicizing the Fourth of July to hold some North Korean style military parade is gross and a complete waste of money.
Trump isn't in charge of spending. The House is. It isn't like he gave $40 billion to a bunch of European plutocrats, for their slush fund, on some handshake climate change nonsense.
Do you know where I learned that? In a college history class. I'm not sure what is so wrong, or controversial, about that post.
First of all, congress hasn’t even gotten the expense report. This is 100% on trump. The house did not approve these appropriations. Nice try though.
Second of all, combatting climate change is infinitely more important than some idiotic dictator style campaign rally. Most of us actually believe scientists over libertarian think tanks that prop up the oil industry.
“Climate change nonsense” is a phrase that you will never hear an intelligent person say.
A rainout would be hilarious. Maybe it’ll even save some of that money for the National Park service.
Or you could tell me why I'm wrong. Are you disputing that most of the original northerners were Puritans, or that the south was dominated by agriculture? With which part are you having an issue?
Last edited:
The Paris Accord deal was bogus and served nothing more than to give US tax payer dollars to Merkel and her group of jackasses.
So i open twitter and see that “revolutionary war airports” is trending. What?? Htf can that be? I wonder for all of 15 seconds. Then it hits me....trump. And sure enough...
That's why I try to stay off Twitter if it's not UNC related.
That's what everyone who actually talked about what was in the bill told me. Plus, since when was the president allowed to enter into a treaty without the consent of the House?
High profile Democrat donor and pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, arrested for sex trafficking of minors.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-arrested-for-sex-trafficking-of-minors-source
Scum.
Of.
The.
Earth.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-arrested-for-sex-trafficking-of-minors-source
Scum.
Of.
The.
Earth.
Lawyer For Epstein Victim Says Trump Was “Only” High Powered Person Who Helped Him
https://summit.news/2019/07/08/lawy...-was-only-high-powered-person-who-helped-him/
https://summit.news/2019/07/08/lawy...-was-only-high-powered-person-who-helped-him/
How many electoral votes does London get?
London hates him, but he does well around the other parts of the country, kind of like here in the US. Basically, think of London as you would San Fransisco.
I've never really cared about how other countries feel about our politicians or us in general. Doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Why should I care what the British version of dadika13 thinks about us? I'm comfortable enough in my own skin to not care.
There was nothing in my post that was defensive.I was just making an observation and of course you went all @tarheel0910 and got super defensive
TRUMP (2002): "I've known Jeff [Epstein] for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with!"
TRUMP (2019): "I was not a fan of Epstein’s, that I can tell you. I was not a fan of his."
Lol
TRUMP (2019): "I was not a fan of Epstein’s, that I can tell you. I was not a fan of his."
Lol
You do realize he kicked him out of Mara Lago. And you do realize the more we learn about someone the less we may like them?
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this guy. He's probably got a lot of dirt he could give up about high profile people. I think he's in his late 60s, so he might be willing to deal so he doesn't die in prison.
Too often I get my hopes up for justice to prevail, then am disappointed over and over.
With the pics and other evidence, and girl / women victims talking now - its hard for me to see how he wiggles out of this - without some seriously corrupt payoffs.
I think he will get life in prison - but could still cut a deal maybe to go to some "white collar prison - that is more like assisted-living or a nursing home....as opposed to "pound me in the ___" prison (Office Space movie reference).
High profile or not, if they’re guilty charge them, no matter who they are.
